Is the Obama presidency a good thing for the US military or not?

Is the Obama presidency a good thing for the US military?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Other (don't know / don't care / undecided /... )

    Votes: 2 20.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Munin

VIP Member
Dec 5, 2008
1,308
96
83
DEFENSE
Progress

Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues.
Announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.
Developed a comprehensive new strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan and authorized deployment of more than 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
Announced creation of a Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record for members of the U.S. Armed Forces to improve quality of medical care.

The Obama Administration is investing in a strong, agile, well-trained, and well-equipped U.S. military that can fight and win the nation’s wars. U.S. Armed Forces must be able to prevail in current operations and the missions they are most likely to face, while developing capabilities to deter potential adversaries and provide a hedge against other risks and contingencies. Our policies will incorporate lessons from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. First and foremost, we will ensure that our troops have the training, equipment and support that they need when they are deployed, and the care that they and their families need and deserve.

Take Care of Our Troops, Military Families, and Veterans

Expand Ground Forces to Meet Military Needs and Improve Quality of Life: Increasing end strength in the Army and Marine Corps will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments, reduce the strain on military families, and help put an end to stop loss. We also plan to halt end strength reductions in the Air Force and Navy.

Lighten Burdens on Our Brave Troops and Their Families: Those in uniform are not the only ones who serve; military families are a top priority for this Administration. The President has announced plans to raise military pay and continue providing quality child-care, job-training for spouses, and expanded counseling and outreach to families that have known the separation and stress of war.

Serve Our Veterans: The President is committed to giving veterans the care they were promised and the benefits they have earned. For additional information on veterans’ issues, visit the Veterans Issues Page.
Rebalance Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century

Institutionalize Irregular Warfare Capabilities: We must ensure our troops have the equipment they need to prevail in current operations, including assets that provide critical information, protection, and mobility. We will increase intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for troops in the field and research and development. We will increase spending on helicopters and crews and grow U.S. Special Operations capabilities.

Preserve Air Supremacy: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, quickly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We intend to make a greater investment in advanced technology and essential systems like fifth-generation F-35 fighters.

Maintain Dominance at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. We will focus on increasing naval capabilities that support presence, stability and counterinsurgency operations in coastal regions.

Missile Defense: To better protect our forces and those of our allies, we intend to field more of our most capable theater missile defense systems, including the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System and Standard Missile 3 programs, and convert additional Aegis ships to increase ballistic missile defense capabilities.

Space: The full spectrum of U.S. military capabilities depends on our space systems. To maintain our technological edge and protect assets in this domain, we will continue to invest in next-generation capabilities such as operationally responsive space and global positioning systems. We will cooperate with our allies and the private sector to identify and protect against intentional and unintentional threats to U.S. and allied space capabilities.

Cyberspace: U.S. national security also depends on a functioning and resilient cyber domain. The United States will lead international and domestic efforts to ensure the security of the global information infrastructures continue to invest in cyberspace, and increase collaboration with the private sector and allies to protect this critical domain.
Reform Procurement, Acquisition, and Contracting

Our economic circumstances require a change in the way we acquire military equipment and services. The Administration intends to stop programs that are not performing and significantly exceed their budget or that spend limited taxpayer dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. We will ensure that requirements are reasonable and technology is available to affordably meet programs’ cost and schedule goals. We intend to realistically estimate program costs, provide budget stability for the programs we initiate, adequately staff the government acquisition team, and provide disciplined and effective oversight.

Develop and Resource Strategies to Succeed in Current Conflicts

Afghanistan: The President’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan will ensure that all elements of national power are engaged and integrated in an effort to defeat al Qaeda to prevent attacks on the homeland and on our Allies and partners. We are asking our friends and allies to join us with a renewed commitment. We also will regularly assess the progress of our efforts and those of the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan through clear measurements to ensure ongoing informed accountability.
Iraq: Because of the skilled efforts of our troops and commitment of the Iraqi people to building a better life through a peaceful political process, violence in Iraq has reduced substantially. Because of this, we are moving forward with a responsible drawdown of our combat forces, transferring security to Iraq's forces. Under the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement, Iraqi personnel have taken the lead in security operations and will continue to assume greater responsibility.
Communicate the Full Costs of Our Operations: The American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in our ongoing military operations. We will move away from ad hoc funding of long-term commitments through supplemental and include future military costs in the regular budget so that we have an honest, more accurate, and fiscally responsible estimate of Federal spending.
Strengthen Our Alliances and Partnerships

We are committed to strengthening existing alliances and partnerships and building new ones to confront current challenges. Additionally, to boost global partnership capacity, we will support funding to allow the increased training and equipping of foreign militaries to undertake counter terrorism and stability operations. As the threat posed by al Qaeda is international in scope; the response should also be international.

Use All Elements of American Power

To meet today’s challenges, the United States must harness our military, diplomatic, economic, information, legal, and moral strength in an integrated and balanced fashion. The President is committed to building our civilian national security capacity so that the burden for stability operations is not disproportionately absorbed by our military. In Afghanistan, in particular, at the same time that we are increasing our troop commitment, we will employ the necessary civilian resources to build Afghan governance capacity and self-sufficiency.

Defense
 
Last edited:
I voted don't know.

Time will tell.

I think O is making a terrible mistake continuing the occupation in Afghanistan.

Wasting troops in that hellhole can't be a good thing for the military
 
I voted don't know.

Time will tell.

I think O is making a terrible mistake continuing the occupation in Afghanistan.

Wasting troops in that hellhole can't be a good thing for the military


Not to mention, he still has to finish the job in Iraq -- despite his promise of withdrawal (delayed) within 16 months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/middleeast/18nineveh.html?_r=1&hp

I think that troop withdrawls from Iraq are years overdue, already.
 
I voted don't know.

Time will tell.

I think O is making a terrible mistake continuing the occupation in Afghanistan.

Wasting troops in that hellhole can't be a good thing for the military


Not to mention, he still has to finish the job in Iraq -- despite his promise of withdrawal (delayed) within 16 months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/world/middleeast/18nineveh.html?_r=1&hp

I think that troop withdrawls from Iraq are years overdue, already.


Be that as it may, it's the libs that have told me that "we can't leave the mess we've made". His commitment is to complete withdrawal, with combat troops earlier. How does he plan to do that? He did also say he would listen to the advice of the ground commanders. I presume that's the reason for latest 4-month delay. If that's the case, why make promises that are not sustainable, especially when he, and others, touted himself as "a new kind of politician"?
 
I'm with Edi....too soon to tell. (Trying with all my might to be objective here).

You've listed what he "plans" on doing. We've hit first contact now and we know that no plan ever survives first contact. So, now what's he really going to do. Unknown. (Even to him I suspect.)

So, what does it look like if something is good for the military? In my opinion, the following are a few things:

1) Reduce the use of the military. (It's better for them to be very strong and lightly used).
2) Renew and refit equipment
3) Widen the technology gap we have over all of our adversaries
4) Air Dominance at any cost. We can do without a lot of other things, but no other country should ever come within a country mile of us in the air. The cost is too high.
5) Smart sea power. I'm not sure that I've heard a theory on what our sea strategy is in a long time. I'd like to hear one soon.
6) Cyber space. We need to redouble our efforts here. Our EWO forces are not near where we need them to be.
 
I'm with Edi....too soon to tell. (Trying with all my might to be objective here).

You've listed what he "plans" on doing. We've hit first contact now and we know that no plan ever survives first contact. So, now what's he really going to do. Unknown. (Even to him I suspect.)

So, what does it look like if something is good for the military? In my opinion, the following are a few things:

1) Reduce the use of the military. (It's better for them to be very strong and lightly used).
2) Renew and refit equipment
3) Widen the technology gap we have over all of our adversaries
4) Air Dominance at any cost. We can do without a lot of other things, but no other country should ever come within a country mile of us in the air. The cost is too high.
5) Smart sea power. I'm not sure that I've heard a theory on what our sea strategy is in a long time. I'd like to hear one soon.
6) Cyber space. We need to redouble our efforts here. Our EWO forces are not near where we need them to be.

Those appear to be reasonable and logical.

Also looking for objectivity, I've been reviewing what some of the Congressional Dems have had to say on the subject, and his performance thus far. This came up for use in another topic, and it's equally suitable here.


Senator Russ Feingold on Obama's Escalation of the War in Afghanistan, Torture, State Secrets and Single-Payer Health Care

From my perspective, Obama has been pretty much following the "status quo" that he vowed to break. I'm just not understanding the following in lockstep from those who criticized the same behavior of the people they called "Bushbots".
 
I didn't make this up, but it's still a great line (and 100% true):

We marched right in. We can march right out.


(I'm referring to both Afghanistan and Iraq).


We need to train and trust our Special Ops. They can do more than any conventional army anytime.

Conventional warfare is dated. It doesn't work anymore.
 
I didn't make this up, but it's still a great line (and 100% true):

We marched right in. We can march right out.


(I'm referring to both Afghanistan and Iraq).


We need to train and trust our Special Ops. They can do more than any conventional army anytime.

Conventional warfare is dated. It doesn't work anymore.


Reminds me of Charlie Wilson. Problem with that was, there was no follow-up.
 
I'm with Edi....too soon to tell. (Trying with all my might to be objective here).

You've listed what he "plans" on doing. We've hit first contact now and we know that no plan ever survives first contact. So, now what's he really going to do. Unknown. (Even to him I suspect.)

So, what does it look like if something is good for the military? In my opinion, the following are a few things:

1) Reduce the use of the military. (It's better for them to be very strong and lightly used).
2) Renew and refit equipment
3) Widen the technology gap we have over all of our adversaries
4) Air Dominance at any cost. We can do without a lot of other things, but no other country should ever come within a country mile of us in the air. The cost is too high.
5) Smart sea power. I'm not sure that I've heard a theory on what our sea strategy is in a long time. I'd like to hear one soon.
6) Cyber space. We need to redouble our efforts here. Our EWO forces are not near where we need them to be.

Those appear to be reasonable and logical.

Also looking for objectivity, I've been reviewing what some of the Congressional Dems have had to say on the subject, and his performance thus far. This came up for use in another topic, and it's equally suitable here.


Senator Russ Feingold on Obama's Escalation of the War in Afghanistan, Torture, State Secrets and Single-Payer Health Care

From my perspective, Obama has been pretty much following the "status quo" that he vowed to break. I'm just not understanding the following in lockstep from those who criticized the same behavior of the people they called "Bushbots".

I think I would be safe in saying that if Feingold is for it, I'm against it and vise-versa. I might have to recant once or twice, but I think I'm on solid ground there. That said, from the left's prospective Obama has to be pretty disappointing in the area of military affairs.

In my opinion, it's because the "peacenik" crowd just does not understand military policy. They hate it so not enough effort is put into understanding the nuances of military policy choices. They tend to paint with broad brush strokes. But this is just a policy area like any other. You can't just paper over some stuff. Let me see if I can analogize to another area.

Let's say we are talking about poverty and the policy choices that the US could engage in to assist with solving the poverty problem. My position (hypothetically) is that we should provide jobs to all the poverty stricken people. Forget about the implications of that, that's my position. Once they all have jobs, then poverty will be substantially reduced. More taxes would be paid, less would flow out for social program payments and all would be right with the world.

Now we all know a thousand things wrong with my plan to end poverty and I'm sure we could all list 10 off the top of our heads.

That is the same issue with the policy choice, "I will pull all our troops out of <Iraq/Afghanistan>"
Sorry Bub, it ain't that simple. You can say that when you truly don't understand what would happen when you carry that out. I really think that Obama intended to do just that. I don't think he understood. What he now understands is the are about 20,000 REALLY REALLY bad things that could happen if he pursued that policy. Further, he understands that those bad things would be DIRECTLY blamed on him.

Reality has a nasty habit of altering beautiful plans.
 
I didn't make this up, but it's still a great line (and 100% true):

We marched right in. We can march right out.


(I'm referring to both Afghanistan and Iraq).


We need to train and trust our Special Ops. They can do more than any conventional army anytime.

Conventional warfare is dated. It doesn't work anymore.

You may be an old man, but I'm really questioning the "wise" part about now.

Welcome to the board.:welcome:
 
I didn't make this up, but it's still a great line (and 100% true):

We marched right in. We can march right out.


(I'm referring to both Afghanistan and Iraq).


We need to train and trust our Special Ops. They can do more than any conventional army anytime.

Conventional warfare is dated. It doesn't work anymore.


Reminds me of Charlie Wilson. Problem with that was, there was no follow-up.

Reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld. We don't need to go into Iraq heavy like in 1991. We can do it with lighter troops. We see how that turned out.
 
Obama says that we need to regroup and "retrain" our troops. Why would we need to retrain our troops? If you have been through boot camp in the Army or the USMC and have served time in Iraq or Afghanistan you shouldn't need any retraining.

He also metions a lot that we need to regroup so we have more military resources...For what? Does he plan on going to war with any other country? Does he plan on taking a couple of years off and then re deploying in Iraq for the third time? Doesn't make much sense to me. Im not questioning his actions by any means, Im jus questioning his reasoning.

I don't agree with the thought that we should pull out of Iraq at all. I do think we should stop fighting the people there...Let Iraq's army take care of that stuff. But we should set up some deal where we are aloud to have military bases there. Its one of our few opportunities to have connections with the Middle East.
 
I didn't make this up, but it's still a great line (and 100% true):

We marched right in. We can march right out.


(I'm referring to both Afghanistan and Iraq).


We need to train and trust our Special Ops. They can do more than any conventional army anytime.

Conventional warfare is dated. It doesn't work anymore.

All great ideas. But how much influence does the president actually have over these decisons. Shouldn't head of the military branches decide that. Or maybe im wrong.

But i feel like we need to use smaller unit sizes. Send men out in 10 to 12 men sized platoons to perform a mission. Sending a company through a narrow street in huge vehicles is asking for an ambush.

We also should always have Air support ready. Train pilots to fly low and have precision aim. NO MISTAKES. In training more pressure needs to be put on the pilots. Try manuevers never attempted on the battle field.

Night missions should be used more often. Actually we should attack a night more than day time. Give them a taste of their own medicine. Designate a few men to scout out a few taliban members or terrorists. Tell them to find out where they live and what times they will all be in the house. Then when they are gone set up a bomb or some sort of explosive device. And when they come back give them a taste of their own medicine.

You can forget pride when it comes to modern day warfare. The attitude of the military needs to be changed from "we wear uniforms, we love to salute our officers, and we have great pride of ourselves" to "ill do anything i can to help my country win the war...even if i have to attempt tactics never applied on the battle field...and even if it is considered cheating or playing dirty"
 

Forum List

Back
Top